- Published on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 22:35
- Written by Super User
By CHARLIE ALLO
Benghazi has become a focal point for many Americans, but it is not clear that the essential aspects of this attack are being brought out.
In a recent debate between President Obama and Governor Romney the question of when the President first mentioned the terrorist attack came up. The speech given in the Rose Garden on 9/12/2012 was presented as proof of the fact that the President called the action at Benghazi a terrorist attack.
The best way to present this information is to give the quote from the transcript of the speech: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.
We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”
One may concluded that the “No acts of terror” is being applied to the act on the consulate at Benghazi, because the attack on Benghazi was the focal point of the speech, but it can also be viewed as a general term for any acts of terror. The point being made is that the President never attributed the act to terrorist.
Towards the beginning of the speech the President made the following comment: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” One can view this statement as attributing the attack on the consulate to individuals that were disturbed over some action being assigned to something done in this country to denigrate the Moslem religion. The position that was taken by the administration would indicate that the use of the term “acts of terror” was meant to be used in a general way, and not as an act conducted by militant terrorist (Al- Qaeda).
Parsing the term “terror” in the transcript does little to expose the real problems that have cropped up as a result of the attack on the U.S. consulate at Benghazi. It has been brought out that there were a number out well executed attacks performed by militant terrorist in the six months previous to the attack on the consulate, and yet little was done to protect the ambassador and his staff, in spite of the frequent requests for an increase in protection. The President said that he and Secretary Clinton relied deeply on the ambassador for his knowledge of the situation on the ground; this statement does not reflect the reality of the situation at Benghazi. The President also suggested that he had directed those in his administration to increase the security on diplomatic posts around the world after the attack. One would have to question our intelligence agencies failure to note the continuing growth of Al-Qaeda throughout the Middle East and beyond, if in fact they failed to note this in their daily briefings for the President.
The problem the administration seems to have is facing the fact that reality is not matching up with the rhetoric being employed by the administration.
The radical Islamic movement is not declining; it is morphing into an organization that is adapting to the pressures that are being applied to it. The Nation had a plan in place at the end of the last administration, but the plan was trashed by the current administration.
The abandonment of the previous plan was due to a number of factors: cost, long term commitment, lack of understanding by the general public, and what seemed to be a contradiction to many democratic principles.
The current approach is only going to energize the radical Islamic movement. Just one more point to be made on the administration’s actions, it does not help to publicly tout every successful action taken against the radical Islamic movement; this point can be illustrated by a video clip showing demonstrators in the Middle East, on 9/11/2012, chanting “Obama, we’re all Osama’s”, which was a clear indication of the resistance the administration’s policies are fostering within this radical movement.